janKesi wrote:"X la Y" means roughly "in context X, Y." It encompasses some of the "lon X" meanings but it's also more general than that.

toki!

Can you please give me an example, where it would be wrong to say "lon X", whereas "X la" is correct?

Thank you in advance!

Tepan

well i feel the most obvious one is if/then phrases. whenever the la phrase is a full sentence instead of a single word or phrase it translates roughly as "If X then Y", this cannot be put clearly into phrases with lon. so "mi moku la, mi pilin pona" cannot be converted into *mi pilin pona lon mi moku, this is ungrammatical.

another example that comes to mind is expressing opinion or perspective. the standard way to express this with prepositions is with tawa, not lon. so "mi la, kili li pona" is roughly equivalent to "kili li pona tawa mi", and not "kili li pona lon mi."

lon is equivalent to la in scenarios involving time phrases and anything la-related using location. so "tenpo ni la, mi wile lape" is directly equivalent to "mi wile lape lon tenpo ni." similarly, "mi tawa lon tomo" is equivalent to "tomo la, mi tawa." these phrases correspond basically to "i move in the house" and "in the house, i move" in english, but the second one is more exceptional and would be less likely to be done in practice. expressing time with both la and lon are both basic usages.

janKesi wrote:"X la Y" means roughly "in context X, Y." It encompasses some of the "lon X" meanings but it's also more general than that.

toki!

Can you please give me an example, where it would be wrong to say "lon X", whereas "X la" is correct?

Thank you in advance!

Tepan

well i feel the most obvious one is if/then phrases. whenever the la phrase is a full sentence instead of a single word or phrase it translates roughly as "If X then Y", this cannot be put clearly into phrases with lon. so "mi moku la, mi pilin pona" cannot be converted into *mi pilin pona lon mi moku, this is ungrammatical.

another example that comes to mind is expressing opinion or perspective. the standard way to express this with prepositions is with tawa, not lon. so "mi la, kili li pona" is roughly equivalent to "kili li pona tawa mi", and not "kili li pona lon mi."

lon is equivalent to la in scenarios involving time phrases and anything la-related using location. so "tenpo ni la, mi wile lape" is directly equivalent to "mi wile lape lon tenpo ni." similarly, "mi tawa lon tomo" is equivalent to "tomo la, mi tawa." these phrases correspond basically to "i move in the house" and "in the house, i move" in english, but the second one is more exceptional and would be less likely to be done in practice. expressing time with both la and lon are both basic usages.

toki!

Thanks for elaborating.

I was talking about official Toki Pona, and I somehow thought that we both were. Sorry for the confusion. Your reasoning makes perfectly sense in non-official Toki Pona as Pije described it.

In official Toki Pona, there is a comma before "la" in if-then-sentences, and we would be talking about "X, la" and not "X la". "X, la" is the same as "lon ni: X". "mi moku, la mi pilin pona" converts to "mi pilin pona lon ni: mi moku."

I understand that Pije doesn't allow to start a la-phrase with a preposition, but official Toki Pona has no problem with that. So, "X tawa mi" converts to "tawa mi la X". Moreover, there is no "mi la" in pu. (But in non-official Toki Pona, yes, "mi la" would be a good example for how "X la" ≠ "lon X".) So "kili li pona tawa mi" converts to "tawa mi la kili li pona" in official Toki Pona.

Well, pu is a little inconsistent on 'A,la B’ since, in fact, it gives the formula as ‘A la B’, but uses a comma in all examples. This seems to be just Sonja’s habit and not an “official” position, since the comma is never necessary for clarity (or ever mentioned).

Trick challenge. Any sample you offer (there is no explicit rule) can be immediately reinterpreted as a noun+ noun or noun+ adj string (cf. the pu/Pije ‘pi’ rule), so not a counterexample, despite “obviously” being a prepositional phrase. Thus ‘tan ni la’, ordinarily meaning “because of this, therefore, so” is now “given this cause/reason” with about the same force. It makes very little practical difference, but it does make some explanations harder or more arbitrary (cf ‘pi’ again).